In a recent judgment (Institute of law, Chandigarh & Ors Vs Neeraj Sharma & Ors), the Supreme Court has removed some of the undesirable cobwebs that were tending to dampen the role of public interest litigations (PIls) dominantly meant to redress genuine public wrong or public injury. Right from the early 1980s, the apex court has been expanding the meaning of “locus standi”.
In the Fertiliser Corporation Kangar Union case (1981), the Supreme Court said, “If a citizen is no more than a wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern beyond what belongs to any one of the 660 million people of this country, the door of the court will not be ajar for him. But if he belongs to an organisation which has special interest in the subject-matter, if he has some concern deeper than that of a busybody, he cannot be told off at the gates, although whether the issue raised by him is justiceable may still remain to be considered. I, therefore, take the view that the present petition would clearly have been permissible under Article 226.”
Similarly, in SP Gupta Vs Union of India (1981), the apex court held, “….. whenever there is a public wrong or public injury caused by an act or omission of the State or a public authority which is contrary to the Constitution or the law, any member of the public acting bona fide and having sufficient interest can maintain an action for redressal of such public wrong or public injury. The strict rule of standing which insists that only a person who has suffered a specific legal injury can maintain an action for judicial redress is relaxed and a broad rule is evolved which gives standing to any member of the public who is not a mere busybody or a meddlesome interloper but who has sufficient interest in the proceeding.”
The court further said, “There is also another reason why the rule of locus standi needs to be liberalised. Today we find that law is being increasingly used as a device of organised social action for the purpose of bringing about socioeconomic change. In other words, the duty is one which is not correlative to any individual rights. Now if breach of such public duty were allowed to go unredressed because there is no one who has received a specific legal injury or who was entitled to participate in the proceedings pertaining to the decision relating to such public duty, the failure to perform such public duty would go unchecked and it would promote disrespect for the rule of law.
It would also open the door for corruption and inefficiency because there would be no check on exercise of public power except what may be provided by the political machinery, which at best would be able to exercise only a limited control and, at worst, might become a participant in misuse or abuse of power. It would also make the new social collective rights and interests created for the benefit of the deprived sections of the community meaningless and ineffectual.”
The Supreme Court in Dattaraj Nathuji’s case (2005) held that public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection. It has to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to citizens. The aim of public interest litigation should be to redress genuine public wrong or public injury. In the case of Institute of law, Justice V Gopala Gowda speaking for the court has succinctly held that the public authorities are required to make necessary specific regulations or valid guidelines to exercise their discretionary powers. Relying upon earlier decisions, Justice Gowda goes on to state that the exercise of power by political entities and officers / officials for providing different kinds of services and benefits to the people “always has an element of discretion, which is required to be used in larger public interest and for public good …. In our Constitutional structure, no functionary of the State or public authority has an absolute or unfettered discretion.
The very idea of unfettered discretion is totally incompatible with the doctrine of equality enshrined in the Constitution and is an antithesis to the concept of Rule of law.” Relying upon the celebrated judgments of lord Denning in Breen Vs Amalgamated Engg Union, laker Airways ltd and Padfield Vs Minister of Agriculture, the affirms that the discretion of a statutory body is never unfettered and is liable to be exercised according to law. That means at least this: the statutory body must be guided by relevant considerations and not by irrelevant ones. Having discarded the plea of charitable or philanthropic intention of the institution concerned purporting to subserve any public interest, the Judge notices very interesting features in this case.
land measuring about 5.7 acres in the Union Territory of Chandigarh was allotted @ Rs 900 per square yard by the administration of the Union Territory. land rates were unjustifiably based on those applicable for allotment to educational institutions in the Union Territory. No advertisements or any other form of public notice was given to the effect that land was available for any of the professed purposes. The assertion of the Executive on the opt repeated notion of “unfettered discretion” was stoutly repelled by the Supreme Court speaking through Justice Gowda, who further stated that the discretionary power conferred upon public authorities to carry out the necessary regulations for allotting land for the purposes of constructing public educational institution should not be misused. This judgment evaluates the manner of dealing with public assets such as land.
The discretion in this regard has to be regulated in accordance with law and the Constitution. The State authorities are obliged to make the availability of land for specific purposes known through proper disclosure in order to satisfy the requirements of Article 14. This judgment will now govern the basis for public interest litigations in the distribution of public largesse.
In our State of Odisha, these issues are burning ones. No policy has really been evolved in a participatory manner. What has hitherto been rushed through has several infirmities on account of non-appreciation of the manner and object of regulating such discretionary powers. Annulment of any allotment raises many faceted issues that deal with the past. But digging the past ought not delay us in providing a proper and adequate public policy or law regulating allotment of land of any nature in the State of Odisha.
There is hardly any public concern or debate on this issue. land is a finite and limited asset. It would become increasingly difficult for the next few generations to fulfil the necessities of a “decent life” in terms of the Article 21 of the Constitution by having a reasonable shelter. Proposals have now to be evolved by the people for initiating a meaningful dialogue with the decision-making authorities. The political leadership is expected to act as a catalyst in this regard. But, alas, there is no purposive action in this direction. There appears to be a crying need for more assertive and resolute initiative on the part of the alert citizens. They must now rise to the occasion. And this concerns all of us!